Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

brighttalk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#131

Post by Matthias247 »

detaro wrote: post #37
JoshTriplett wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current version of QUIC is designed to support HTTP/3, but the QUIC roadmap includes support for other protocols as well.

I thought IETF QUIC was higher-level agnostic from the beginning, has that changed?

It is. The bare API of QUIC would now mostly look just like TCP/IP streams. You have bidirectional byte streams with flow-control.

The main difference from an API pointer of view is that there is an additional multiplexing layer. On TCP/IP the byte stream is directly on the connection. On QUIC a connection can contain multiple streams - which are openable by both sides. And each of those streams is a bidirectional or unidirectional byte streams.

QUIC doesn't care what protocol you run on top of those streams. HTTP/3 is just the only one which is specified at the moment.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#132

Post by CameronNemo »

kazen44 wrote: post #55
CameronNemo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not thought much about how BGP would react to QUIC as transport, would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

for one, not having hardware acceleration makes quic very slow compared to TCP. This is especially a problem on firewalls, as they need to tear apart and reassemble tcp packets at line speed. In terms of BGP and quic as a transport. As far as i know, quic is not backwards compatible with TCP, and having two different transport protocols for the routing protocols that ties the internet together would be problematic in…

I imagine it would be fairly simple to teach a BGP implementation to use either TCP or QUIC, configurable per-session.

Firewalls that dig deep into tcp packets sound like troublesome middleware with which good actors are in an arms, not something to go out of the way to support.

I'll have to look into potential MSS issues.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#133

Post by moomin »

jupp0r wrote: post #89
moomin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if you run Istio there’s a standard setting for getting it to do the TLS for you. Indeed, half the features of istio wouldn’t work if you did the TLS yourself. So you kind of need plaintext protocols even if you’re only running them internally within a single (logical) machine.

Istio would not only do TLS, but would also do QUIC for you in the scenario you describe.

You're right, but it would provide a permanent use for regular old TCP connections (which means the answer to the article's question would still be no).

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#134

Post by doublerabbit »

fulafel wrote: post #76
doublerabbit wrote: post #53

As it seems like we won't be rolling out IPv6 anytime soon, why would this replace TCP?

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Handy but Germany is the only country that has 50% IPv6. I am still calling it's not going to be rolled out any time.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#135

Post by bregma »

bawolff wrote: post #129
coder543 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the singular definition of TCP/IP, as you're seemingly so intent on believing. TCP and IP are separable[1], so it logically makes sense to have "TCP/IP" mean that you're using them together, rather than meaning some arbitrary suite of protocols that may have nothing to do with TCP specifically. Cloudflare, which is obviously a major industry player, defines TCP/IP the same way that the webinar authors and…

I don't think your cloudflare link supports your position. CF talks about "The TCP/IP relationship..." - in context they are clearly referring to tcp and ip as two separate nouns, not as a single noun to refer to the internet suite. Context can modify word meaning-using that as an example really doesn't say anything about the term "tcp/ip" in general. Fwiw Wikipedia also thinks tcp/ip means the protocol suite https:/…

If it was clear, after reading the headline I would not have assumed that QUIC was proposed to replace the internet protocol (IP) for the internet.

The title "QUIC -- Will it replace TCP?" would be accurate and correct and contains everything both necessary and sufficient to describe the article. Adding in unrelated extras, like QUIC replacing IP, conveys additional and incorrect information. It muddies what the article is about.

Calling out unclear and misleading communications is not being pedantic. Clarity is the most fundamental aspect of good and effective communications. The headline writer does not need an apologist, they need to expand their knowledge of the subject they are writing about.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#136

Post by tialaramex »

mmm_grayons wrote: post #128
tialaramex wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't use the stuff you linked with TLS 1.3, and of course you can't use an older TLS version in QUIC. It's possible you knew those things, but I want to make sure. My recent experience with the password manager that was linked on HN shows me that even an abuse-resistant API like Sodium cannot stop people being idiots. (The author believs some random passwords aren't "unique enough" so they have written a bunch o…

I hadn't checked compatibility and wasn't aware they no longer included SRP. It's not the best PAKE, but to my knowledge, not cryptographically broken (Apple uses it for a bunch of stuff, IIRC). Thanks for letting me know. And you're right, that's pretty dopey with the password manager. I understand the point of password security measures, but just do something like pam cracklib. There's no such thing as an idiot-pro…

They didn't explicitly deprecate TLS-SRP, it simply can't work in TLS 1.3 because although it superficially looks like a minor revision, and indeed (to defeat middlebox ossification) on the wire it appears to say it is only TLS 1.2 in reality it's a fairly radical change.

TLS-SRP bolts over the traditional TLS key exchange mechanism, which made sense, but in TLS 1.3 that entire mechanism is gone, keys are either pre-shared or they're always agreed in the first protocol burst using an (elliptic curve) Diffie Hellman method. So by the time you'd have a natural opportunity to do SRP the protocol has already agreed keys anyway.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#137

Post by fulafel »

doublerabbit wrote: post #134
fulafel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Handy but Germany is the only country that has 50% IPv6. I am still calling it's not going to be rolled out any time.

After all the equipment investment and adding support to all the software, people are going to say "just forget it" and go back to v4-only and piling CGNAT style hacks on top of each other in an endless tower of babel? Possible, but would be quite a dystopia.

IPv6 transition mechanisms were designed for a long coexistence of both v4 & v6, not that different from QUIC vs HTTP :)

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#138

Post by CameronNemo »

fart_ratty wrote: post #69
kazen44 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for one, not having hardware acceleration makes quic very slow compared to TCP. This is especially a problem on firewalls, as they need to tear apart and reassemble tcp packets at line speed. In terms of BGP and quic as a transport. As far as i know, quic is not backwards compatible with TCP, and having two different transport protocols for the routing protocols that ties the internet together would be problematic in…

BGP not having security has caused many problems.

BGP has some security. It's called rpki and the industry is slowly adopting it.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#139

Post by allarm »

fart_ratty wrote: post #69
kazen44 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for one, not having hardware acceleration makes quic very slow compared to TCP. This is especially a problem on firewalls, as they need to tear apart and reassemble tcp packets at line speed. In terms of BGP and quic as a transport. As far as i know, quic is not backwards compatible with TCP, and having two different transport protocols for the routing protocols that ties the internet together would be problematic in…

BGP not having security has caused many problems.

BGP over some new fancy transport protocol will cause way more problems.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#140

Post by CameronNemo »

allarm wrote: post #139
fart_ratty wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BGP not having security has caused many problems.

BGP over some new fancy transport protocol will cause way more problems.

Practically? Yes it will cause all kinds of chaos.

Theoretically? Depends on the transport and it's characteristics. There could be a theoretical gain to using something else.

Post reply on HN